Metsfanmax wrote:This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

QFT.Also it allows for actual growth and planning of strategy instead of being forced to go for Asia/Europe because your only territory is there and you have an army of Neutral territories around you.

aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.

Metsfanmax wrote:This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

the drop is random though so the odds of being right next to someone and having only chosen 1 starting point on most maps is quite a large spread. Not saying it is impossible but unlikely this will ever be more of a factor. The odds are almost as likely for a manual drop and incredible dice to win in one turn to happen as this worst case scenario. Also on a map like doodle earth where this is a likely issue it could be made to not work like manual does not work on some maps.

Metsfanmax wrote:This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

This is true, but the constraint would have to be hard-coded for every map, which would require a bit of manual effort. That is, unless we adjusted the constraint depending on how many territories are on the map or something.

I'm in for that. This is kinda like the BR, so this apart of solving the problems of 1v1 also solves the problem of BR you can make a game where everyone starts, with 2 or 3 regions. And also I like the idea of having just one region even if in some games if I just lose because my opponent played first and was adjacent.

Metsfanmax wrote:This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

This is true, but the constraint would have to be hard-coded for every map, which would require a bit of manual effort. That is, unless we adjusted the constraint depending on how many territories are on the map or something.

Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

Metsfanmax wrote:This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

This is true, but the constraint would have to be hard-coded for every map, which would require a bit of manual effort. That is, unless we adjusted the constraint depending on how many territories are on the map or something.

Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

i don't see why.

in 1v1 you get 2 terits now so you could choose to start the game normally or with just 1. in team games there would be no difference as you only start with one terit.

chapcrap wrote:Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

i don't see why.

in 1v1 you get 2 terits now so you could choose to start the game normally or with just 1. in team games there would be no difference as you only start with one terit.

chapcrap wrote:Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

i don't see why.

in 1v1 you get 2 terits now so you could choose to start the game normally or with just 1. in team games there would be no difference as you only start with one terit.

So that you can't choose to start with 12.

no

replacing with Neutrals spots that by default would have a player occupying.

if a map allowed 12 starting positions then you could choose between 1 & 12 but if it had 3 then you could only choose 1, 2 or 3.

chapcrap wrote:Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

i don't see why.

in 1v1 you get 2 terits now so you could choose to start the game normally or with just 1. in team games there would be no difference as you only start with one terit.

So that you can't choose to start with 12.

no

replacing with Neutrals spots that by default would have a player occupying.

if a map allowed 12 starting positions then you could choose between 1 & 12 but if it had 3 then you could only choose 1, 2 or 3.

Then it's already worked out. I'm just saying, it needs to be made sure.

greenoaks wrote:my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

For random, you just pick the number you want and it would give you a map that would fit the criteria.

But then it wouldn't really be random. You could use that to filter out maps that you're not good at. I think that random needs to stay fully random, and we find some other way around this. Such as, on Random, you can't diminish the number of starting territories.

greenoaks wrote:my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

For random, you just pick the number you want and it would give you a map that would fit the criteria.

But then it wouldn't really be random. You could use that to filter out maps that you're not good at. I think that random needs to stay fully random, and we find some other way around this. Such as, on Random, you can't diminish the number of starting territories.

greenoaks wrote:my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

For random, you just pick the number you want and it would give you a map that would fit the criteria.

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. I honestly feel this options opens up a lot more gameplay opportunities. Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

greenoaks wrote:my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

For random, you just pick the number you want and it would give you a map that would fit the criteria.

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. I honestly feel this options opens up a lot more gameplay opportunities. Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

So, you're all for free choice unless it's Doodle Earth? But Luxembourg is ok even though it only has one more territory than Doodle Earth? Your logic does not make sense to me.

greenoaks wrote:my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

For random, you just pick the number you want and it would give you a map that would fit the criteria.

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. I honestly feel this options opens up a lot more gameplay opportunities. Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

So, you're all for free choice unless it's Doodle Earth? But Luxembourg is ok even though it only has one more territory than Doodle Earth? Your logic does not make sense to me.

I do not play Luxemburg typically so no need to be a douche bag about your response. GIven that data I would say like I said earlier in maps where it is not feasible to use code it to not work like Manual does not work on a number of maps because of the way the maps are set.

Fazeem wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

the drop is random though so the odds of being right next to someone and having only chosen 1 starting point on most maps is quite a large spread. Not saying it is impossible but unlikely this will ever be more of a factor. The odds are almost as likely for a manual drop and incredible dice to win in one turn to happen as this worst case scenario. Also on a map like doodle earth where this is a likely issue it could be made to not work like manual does not work on some maps.

That all said how does a good idea get vetted and moved to the next steps?